Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
In addition, I haven't seen one point raised in this topic that wasn't already covered in detail in the prior topic.
This I'll agree with you on.
I was completetly against the formulation of this new topic...for the very reason that it's an endless circular discussion.
It doesn't have to be "circular".
I often feel liberal use of that word is a dismissive label that bypasses the logic of the conservative perspective, a shortcut that circumnavigates the valid logic and concerns of those who object to gay marriage, and the gay lifestyle in general.
( "You're a homophobe, you're a bigot...")
As I've made abundantly clear, state-sanctioned homosexuality (i.e., gay marriage) immediately renders the ability to publicly read scripture condemning homosexuality a "hate crime", punishable by jail or large fines.
What I liked about the old topic (again, linked above) is that it was a fully realized discussion.
Both sides fully defined the issues from their respective viewpoints, what was so important about this issue that each side felt a need to discuss it.
Defining how both sides feel their rights are infringed upon.
Defining what is important to both sides, that they don't want to lose.
Defining what the threat and the ramifications of the other side's victory would mean.
Articles and facts from each side, defining the basis for their beliefs.
Quote:
klinton said:
I will never agree with you and Pariah....and you all will never see my side of the issue, as you're too busy trying to uphold your church ordained agenda (which, yes, is all it amounts to).
Even at the bitterest moments of the original discussion (the previous 40-page topic) I still listen to your side, and voice my objections, and respond with, from my perspective, valid arguments.
And I'll take the "church ordained agenda" remark in stride.
Because regardless if you really believe that or not, I know it isn't true.
I've posted Bible verses only to demonstrate (on an as-raised basis) the inconsistency of remarks by those on the gay/liberal side who allege that Biblical objection to homosexuality does not exist.
The Bible does condemn homosexuality, clearly condemn it, chapter and verse ( I first posted these verses at the top of page 5 of the original topic).
It is absolutely not manufactured "just so Christians can hate the homos".
Quite the contrary, Christians don't want to condemn gays, they want to inform them and turn them away from practices that separate them from God, from a burdensome gay belief-system that keeps gays from living full and happy lives.
And I hasten to add:
adultery, in all its forms, is what the Bible condemns as one of the most detestable and severe acts against God, among the most severe manifestations of a society turning away from God, among the manifestations of end-time prophecy of a society headed for self-destruction.
NOT just homosexuality. But
all forms of adultery,
both heterosexual and homosexual.
Homosexual sex is merely
one form of adultery.
So please, no one come back for the Nth time and falsely chide me for singling out homosexuals and not pointing out the Bible holds the same standard for heterosexuals.
I have made clear the
same standard for both.
And I (and others)
haven't merely raised RELIGIOUS objections to homosexuality.
I've also pointed out that no scientific study can conclusively prove that homosexuality
is genetic.
(The other side has pointed out that no study can conclusively prove that homosexuality is
not genetic. )
A stalemate on that aspect.
I've pointed out the scientific fact that
homosexuality until 1973 was categorized by psychological/psychiatric professionals as a treatable mental disorder.
I've pointed out that many psychiatric studies (many by professionals who are homosexuals themselves)
have shown that homosexuality is a treatable disorder, and that men and women have been treated for it, and gone on to enjoy normal heterosexual lives.
I merely point out here that both (1)
those who endorse homosexuality as a normal condition, and
(2)
those who treat homosexuality as an obsessive disorder have sample-study examples to support their arguments of people who live healthy, happy lives who have homosexual tendencies.
Examples of both, people who
are treated as a having a disorder, and of those
not treated who are happy and healthy.
And conversely, both sides can produce examples of unstable people, who have either suffered from treatment, or from non-treatment.
But at the same time, I pointed out the level of rage, smear and slander directed at those psychologists who seriously weigh the issue objectively, and how pro-gay activists wage an angry smear campaign to trash the reputation of any psychologists who treat homosexuality as a treatable mental illness.
And similar treatment of any person, reporter, news source, celebrity, corporation, or other organization, who publicly endorses seeking exploration of the issue beyond the pro-gay belief system.
(A gay
belief-system. Which is, in truth, as faith-based as any religion.)
Regardless of what the pro-gay side would like to believe, there
are valid studies for both sides of the issue, and I posted them.
The angry smear tactics against those who reject the politically correct pro-gay stance, and against those who sincerely weigh whether homosexuality is a treatable disorder, do
nothing to help the pro-gay cause, and instead project the image of a gay holy war on progress, to silence their opposition through intimidation, not facts.
So... to sum up,
my basis for not accepting homosexuality as something that is "normal" and "healthy" is NOT merely based on religious beliefs.
And I've supplied considerable documentation to back up my perspective.
